What is a phenomenon?

[Vajrahridaya]

 

So, in effect, Tao, Brahman, Shunyata are all the same. The view of this no-thing, non-phenomenon is what some traditions claim as truth, while others concede that it cannot be analyzed, inquired into objectively and therefore is not the "Ultimate Truth".

 

There is no stand alone truth in Buddhism and your definition of Emptiness is romantized projection based upon an Advaitin framework that pretty much all Buddhists don't agree with. Because pretty much every Buddhist, except some that wrongly understand what emptiness means in Buddhism, you can pretty much just throw away your view of Buddhism. Just stick with Advaita, fine, but it does not lead to the same place as Buddhism.

 

There is no stand alone truth in Buddhism is Buddhism's ultimate truth, as explained by Nagarjuna. This is different from the Advaitin ultimate truth that stands alone and is self existent without reference. That's why there is less scrutiny in Vedantin texts. Read Abhidharma.

 

You are still taking up emptiness as a view... amazing, it's like you don't read. You need to read more objectively and see Buddhism from it's own side instead of subsuming it with your Brahman view. It's a dogma. Which loosely translates as a mental wall to objective reading and understanding.

 

You reached Turiya? You achieved Nirvikalpa Samadhi?

 

I've experienced. They are Jhana states, meditative states, not what Buddhism equates with emptiness though.

 

I experienced what you would call Nirvikalpa samadhi at the age of 16 (edit: ooops, around 14). I experience Turiya often in waking sleep states.

 

Dependent origination has nothing to do with superimposition over an ultimate faceless consciousness.

 

Double Edit: Supposedly the human being can only have a truly conscious experience of Formless states after puberty because the subtle body goes through a kind of maturation after puberty and is able to consciously hold the experience. I don't quite remember, but I might have read this in the Jnaneshwari. It makes sense, but there might be some very few people who transcend this through being very high level yogi-brashtas or Tulkus.

 

 

 

You can't even prove that consciousness is a phenomenon!

 

It is because it's experiencable, even if subsuming two into one.

 

Still, experiencable.

 

There is nothing outside of the All, as has been quoted from the Buddha for you so many times. Consciousness is also dependently originated, as the Buddha said, as is shown to be in even the Cittamatra or Yogacara shcools of Buddhism, that don't take faceless consciousness as a self and apply dependent origination even there.

 

Study more Buddhism before you claim to know what the Buddha taught.

 

Be well Dwai... I mean you the best!

Edited June 4, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

 

Don't make absolutist claims about the superiority of your way if you don't want to get into a debate. It is NOT THE ONLY WAY or the BEST WAY! If you think it is, you are succumbing to the delusion that your Categorical framework is the BEST and the relative truth-claim that you make is Ultimate!

 

 

man, it's not that I don't want to debate... it's that I keep repeating myself over and over and over again because you keep making the same mistakes in trying to describe Buddhist thought in Vedantic context that just isn't right. it's like you don't read anything I or xabir or Vajrahridaya say, because we keep telling you over and over and over again, it's like you have zero interest in changing your position, while Vajrahridaya on the other hand totally changed his position on Taoism having elements of dependent arising and not being a samsaric path in a very good debate, while you just keep sticking to the same guns, unable to see the other view point and repeating the same useless rhetoric over and over again. questioning my meditative experience or calling me a zealot or saying we don't understand Vedanta, blah blah blah. man... i'm done with this

 

I feel like you identify way too much with your Hindu roots and it really impedes you from being objective and participating in a truly honest debate here. sometimes you act like you're being attacked, getting too defensive, when that isn't the point at all..

Edited June 5, 2009 by mikaelz

[dwai]

man, it's not that I don't want to debate... it's that I keep repeating myself over and over and over again because you keep making the same mistakes in trying to describe Buddhist thought in Vedantic context that just isn't right. it's like you don't read anything I or xabir or Vajrahridaya say, because we keep telling you over and over and over again, it's like you have zero interest in changing your position, while Vajrahridaya on the other hand totally changed his position on Taoism having elements of dependent arising and not being a samsaric path in a very good debate, while you just keep sticking to the same guns, unable to see the other view point and repeating the same useless rhetoric over and over again. questioning my meditative experience or calling me a zealot or saying we don't understand Vedanta, blah blah blah. man... i'm done with this

 

To each his categorical framework. I am trying to transcend mine, are you yours?

 

Why do I stick to my guns? Because your guns don't make logical sense to me. You don't see it...but that still doesn't change the lack of logic on your part.

 

I am responding to each of Xabir's posts, because his are the only ones which show some sincere humility in them. I have also shown you that Dependent Origination is dependent on Superimposition for it's origination.

 

Also, I have shown that consciousness is not a phenomenon. You guys don't get it...Again...if something is not a phenomenon, it cannot possibly dependently arise. It is, has been and will always be. Simply be.

Edited June 5, 2009 by dwai

[dwai]

There is no stand alone truth in Buddhism and your definition of Emptiness is romantized projection based upon an Advaitin framework that pretty much all Buddhists don't agree with. Because pretty much every Buddhist, except some that wrongly understand what emptiness means in Buddhism, you can pretty much just throw away your view of Buddhism. Just stick with Advaita, fine, but it does not lead to the same place as Buddhism.

 

There is no stand alone truth in Buddhism is Buddhism's ultimate truth, as explained by Nagarjuna. This is different from the Advaitin ultimate truth that stands alone and is self existent without reference. That's why there is less scrutiny in Vedantin texts. Read Abhidharma.

 

You are still taking up emptiness as a view... amazing, it's like you don't read. You need to read more objectively and see Buddhism from it's own side instead of subsuming it with your Brahman view. It's a dogma. Which loosely translates as a mental wall to objective reading and understanding.

I've experienced. They are Jhana states, meditative states, not what Buddhism equates with emptiness though.

 

I experienced what you would call Nirvikalpa samadhi at the age of 16 (edit: ooops, around 14). I experience Turiya often in waking sleep states.

 

Dependent origination has nothing to do with superimposition over an ultimate faceless consciousness.

 

Double Edit: Supposedly the human being can only have a truly conscious experience of Formless states after puberty because the subtle body goes through a kind of maturation after puberty and is able to consciously hold the experience. I don't quite remember, but I might have read this in the Jnaneshwari. It makes sense, but there might be some very few people who transcend this through being very high level yogi-brashtas or Tulkus.

It is because it's experiencable, even if subsuming two into one.

 

Still, experiencable.

 

There is nothing outside of the All, as has been quoted from the Buddha for you so many times. Consciousness is also dependently originated, as the Buddha said, as is shown to be in even the Cittamatra or Yogacara shcools of Buddhism, that don't take faceless consciousness as a self and apply dependent origination even there.

 

Study more Buddhism before you claim to know what the Buddha taught.

 

Be well Dwai... I mean you the best!

 

I could say the same to you dear Thunderheart. You just don't see that what you think is your dogmatic adherence to a categorical framework called Dependent Origination, which you try to superimpose on something that is non-phenomenal, no-thing, without a beginning or an end.

 

Whether you reached Turiya or not, whether you reached Nirvikalpa Samadhi or not is something no one can verify but you. I too reach Turiya in meditation. There is no way to describe the experience. It simply is the gap between thoughts rising and falling. That's all...any attempts to analyze it leads thoughts to rise.

 

Why this overwhelming need to prove that Buddhism is the best? If it is, it will show on it's own. You or your friends don't have to go and evangelize others. Your attempts at undermining other traditions and trying to establish the primacy of yours over others is indicative of a deep-rooted insecurity in the veracity of your tradition.

 

I wish you well too man. Just because we don't see eye-to-eye about philosophical discourse doesn't mean we should dislike each other.

 

I do take exception to your dismissive attitude towards Hinduism. That Hinduism you claim as having been part of is a miniscule fraction of Sanatana Dharma...so you were in no position to speak the way you did.

 

I note your apology and the statement that you love Indian food (why that should matter in a philosophical discourse is another matter). I hope you are sincere and with that spirit I accept your apology. And I guess I like Buddhist food (Buddha's Veggie Feast is one of my favorite meals at the local Chinese restaurant)

 

Anyway. I think I have spent enough time and effort here. I need to continue with the novel I was writing and practice.

Edited June 5, 2009 by dwai

[xabir2005]

 

What don't you recognize an Ultimate Truth?

Rinpoche:

 

Although interdependence is itself conditioned, in reality it is unborn and empty; its true nature is unconditioned. But this is not an unconditioned reality like Brahma but an unconditioned truth i.e. the fact that all things are in reality empty, unborn, uncreated.

[dwai]

Rinpoche:

 

Although interdependence is itself conditioned, in reality it is unborn and empty; its true nature is unconditioned. But this is not an unconditioned reality like Brahma but an unconditioned truth i.e. the fact that all things are in reality empty, unborn, uncreated.

 

Doesn't that make the truth a reality?

Anyway...I apologize for wasting everyone's time. I don't know anything and shouldn't have been debating here in the first place.

 

Best Regards,

 

Dwai

[xabir2005]

Edited June 5, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Also, I have shown that consciousness is not a phenomenon. You guys don't get it...Again...if something is not a phenomenon, it cannot possibly dependently arise. It is, has been and will always be. Simply be.

What you have experienced is just a dimension of presence. It must be extended to all other dimensions including sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, thought. Everything is consciousness. When seeing computer screen, there is no separate seer apart from the screen, there is just the screen, the words. When hearing sound, there is no separate hearer, just sound. That alone is presence-awareness. The thoughtless experience of pure beingness is only one dimension. I have already discussed this earlier in 'Gaps and Thoughts'.

[11:33]

Dang. Did you all settle on a definition for a phenomenon yet? I'm curious.

[Sunya]

Dang. Did you all settle on a definition for a phenomenon yet? I'm curious.

 

yes

 

just events experienced, i wouldn't agree with objects because emotions are phenomena as well, same with thoughts. i'd say consciousness is a phenomena too, consciousness and events are inter-dependent. can't have one without the other, therfore both have to be phenomena

 

mind, form, inner world, outer world, perception, perceiver; all are interdependent, all are phenomena, all are empty since nothing is behind them, like a rainbow.

[evZENy]

Reading all these parallel threads I wonder something else:

 

If one accepts that the Buddha gave a clear, well structured and the only working method, why discuss here?

I don't mean Tao Bums - it is open for ANY discussion. I mean here like the VIRTUAL world, where we communicate (and which I am sure is more Maya than everything else we think we comprehend :-)

Why keep on looking for other books, DVDs, teachers, methods...?

 

Don't get me wrong guys - nothing personal.

Just curious.

I haven't achieved anything. I've read lots of books on all religions (yes, yes - I admit, I love Osho and his explanation and that's where most of it came).

I do practice Tai Chi as a way of life - the philosophy, the qigong exercises, meditation, breathing and sexual techniques. I wouldn't call myself Taoist - it's a label of belonging to a religion and structure and as such - dead to me.

But I like to come here, to meet others who search, learn things I've missed or didn't follow correctly.

We humans are tribal animals - we like to know there are others like us and we belong. And that we can be missed (nice talk by Seth Godin: http://www.ted.com/talks/seth_godin_on_the...s_we_lead.html)

 

But if one has accepted that given teaching (let's say Buddha's) is the only one that can lead to liberation, why bother search for anything else!?

With risk to bring the Consciousness topic again - what is it due to? Unconscious doubt? Desire to convince the others just to convince oneself in one's righteousness?

 

I mean - feel free to come and write, and share your experience, and question that of the others. I enjoy it!

But ask yourselves - why?

Do you really help the others (is that the compassion Buddha talked about?)? Do you help even yourselves?

 

I saw few recent clips of U.G. Krishnamutri on a similar topic. Thought provoking.

 

Your curious friend, Evgeny

Edited June 5, 2009 by evZENy

[xabir2005]

If you are referring to me, I am simply responding to the misconceptions about Buddhist teachings.

[Sunya]

 

I mean - feel free to come and write, and share your experience, and question that of the others. I enjoy it!

But ask yourselves - why?

Do you really help the others (is that the compassion Buddha talked about?)? Do you help even yourselves?

 

 

yes,

it helps everyone when distinctions are made

[Unconditioned]

yes,

it helps everyone when distinctions are made

 

Or broods arguments and division. All a matter of perspective It's easy to get roped in to the argument but I agree with evZENy - why? The context of the discussion gets lost just a few posts in and it turns into my view vs. your view instead of an exploration.

 

So is that really helping anyone? It's just strengthening our attachment to our system and our sense of being right. Then it turns into a match to try to bring the other to our side of the argument. Constructive exploration is one thing, trying to prove your point vs. another is destructive (imo).

[Sunya]

Or broods arguments and division. All a matter of perspective It's easy to get roped in to the argument but I agree with evZENy - why? The context of the discussion gets lost just a few posts in and it turns into my view vs. your view instead of an exploration.

 

So is that really helping anyone? It's just strengthening our attachment to our system and our sense of being right. Then it turns into a match to try to bring the other to our side of the argument. Constructive exploration is one thing, trying to prove your point vs. another is destructive (imo).

 

I know it appears that way. actually this has been mainly a continuation of the Buddhism and Advaita thread, where there was some wonderful discussion but people like to get personal when their views are questioned.

 

I agree, exploration can be greatly hampered by people taking their religion/culture/philosophical views as part of their identity, many Buddhists do this as well, not realizing that if fully taking into account the teachings of anatta, or no-self, than there is no such thing as a Buddhist because this is merely an empty label.

 

I feel that trying to prove your point can be destructive only if you are attached to your position, If there is no willingness to change, and the sense of being right is deeply ingrained, then there is no point in debating because it turns into an ego contest. I agree with you on that. but debating without attachment can be very beneficial to clearing up mistaken views and seeing things with more clarity. Every mode of inquiry should be utilized by the spiritual seeker, even the intellect.

[evZENy]

Avoiding my question, you are :-)

 

If Buddha's is the only way, one doesn't state "i want to connect with Taoism", ask for books on Chi massage, taoist masters etc.

 

Accepting one view point for the Truth already means you refuse to change, unless the point changes.

 

So all this is indeed an ego contest or projection of doubts and fear.

 

There won't be Buddhist misconceptions if no one brings the topic of Buddhism :-)

Edited June 5, 2009 by evZENy

[Sunya]

Avoiding my question, you are :-)

 

If Buddha's is the only way, one doesn't state "i want to connect with Taoism", ask for books on Chi massage, taoist masters etc.

 

 

i've never asked for any of these.

 

Accepting one view point for the Truth already means you refuse to change, unless the point changes.

 

 

accepting one view point by blind faith maybe, but not by philosophical inquiry and skepticism, which is the preferred and recommended method by many teachers. "refusing to change" implies that there is a need to change, if there is no logical reason to do so, then it isn't refusing. if someone comes and proves Buddhist view wrong, i'd be happy since I was in the wrong.

 

So all this is indeed an ego contest or projection of doubts and fear.

 

and you coming here to project your own "peacekeeper" identity isn't ego? please, this is samsara, it's all ego.

[dwai]

i've never asked for any of these.

 

 

 

accepting one view point by blind faith maybe, but not by philosophical inquiry and skepticism, which is the preferred and recommended method by many teachers. "refusing to change" implies that there is a need to change, if there is no logical reason to do so, then it isn't refusing. if someone comes and proves Buddhist view wrong, i'd be happy since I was in the wrong.

and you coming here to project your own "peacekeeper" identity isn't ego? please, this is samsara, it's all ego.

 

You still don't get it. It is all relative to the categorical framework. Dependent Origination that you guys love so much. That's another implication of it. Truth-claims (even if it claims no-truth as the truth claim) is dependent on the framework.

 

I stopped posting because it's pointless. You cannot convince me that I am wrong and I cannot convince you that you are wrong. Only way Truth can be accessed is by dropping these frameworks of categorization.

[goldisheavy]

You still don't get it. It is all relative to the categorical framework. Dependent Origination that you guys love so much. That's another implication of it. Truth-claims (even if it claims no-truth as the truth claim) is dependent on the framework.

 

Exactly. What happens is that Buddhists have a wonderful teaching but they cannot digest it and put it into practice. So all they do is just repeat the teaching and they don't understand how the actual digestion of the teaching changes the meaning of the teaching. They think its meaning is constant, like an eternal atman, the meaning of the Buddhist teaching is constant and unchanging, forever.

 

I stopped posting because it's pointless. You cannot convince me that I am wrong and I cannot convince you that you are wrong. Only way Truth can be accessed is by dropping these frameworks of categorization.

 

Arguing with any -ist is a waste of time. Once the person commits themselves to a line of thinking, they can no longer think at all and arguing with such one is a waste of time. A Buddh-ist is one of the worst kind of -ists when it comes to mental stubbornness. Buddhists may not be as violent as the dogmatists from other religions, but when it comes to being hard-headed, they can stand toe to toe with the most hard-headed individuals from any religion, even Islam, which is famous for its insane hard-headedness and lack of flexibility, and never mind other religions.

 

All that talk about compassion and kindness is window dressing. The mind of a buddhist is rigid like a stone that cannot change at all. And maybe that's OK too, but why pretend to work on flexibility then?

 

Theoretically Buddhists work toward the tolerance of the inconceivable phenomena, but the way most Buddhist go, not only do they not tolerate the inconceivable, they cannot even tolerate simple conceptions from other religions, and even the tiniest dispute throws them off keel internally, which is why Buddhists always try to suppress disputes and to install a fake unproductive peace instead.

 

I came to this conclusion after interacting with many Buddhists. It's basically a waste of time to talk to any religious person. I thought Buddhists were different from other religionists, but they aren't. Any person that makes religion rather than wisdom their aspiration is a moron who is hopelessly stuck in samsara and has no chance of escape.

Edited June 6, 2009 by goldisheavy

[forestofclarity]

GIH,

 

What you say is partly true, but I think you are seeing only part of the picture. The Buddha himself said as much as you--- that the dharma is for practice, not to carry about like a raft on your head. And once you reach the other shore, even the dharma should be discarded.

 

But nevertheless, neither you nor I know what anyone needs in this very moment on their path to awakening. We tend to believe that people need this, people need that--- if we can really see the truth of the situation, we would realize that people get exactly what they need. Some need to clutch, some to let go. Some need to suffer, some to be free.

 

It is the beauty of lila.

 

TTC Chapter 2:

 

When people see some things as beautiful,

other things become ugly.

When people see some things as good,

other things become bad.

 

Being and non-being create each other.

Difficult and easy support each other.

Long and short define each other.

High and low depend on each other.

Before and after follow each other.

 

Therefore the Master

acts without doing anything

and teaches without saying anything.

Things arise and she lets them come;

things disappear and she lets them go.

She has but doesn't possess,

acts but doesn't expect.

When her work is done, she forgets it.

That is why it lasts forever.

[xabir2005]

You still don't get it. It is all relative to the categorical framework. Dependent Origination that you guys love so much. That's another implication of it. Truth-claims (even if it claims no-truth as the truth claim) is dependent on the framework.

 

I stopped posting because it's pointless. You cannot convince me that I am wrong and I cannot convince you that you are wrong. Only way Truth can be accessed is by dropping these frameworks of categorization.

The Theory of D.O. is a model, a raft, for us to understand. It is important to understand first even conceptually.

 

But when the insight comes, it is not depend on theories, concepts, etc. It's pure direct experience and insight, and the raft is left behind.

[dwai]

The Theory of D.O. is a model, a raft, for us to understand. It is important to understand first even conceptually.

 

But when the insight comes, it is not depend on theories, concepts, etc. It's pure direct experience and insight, and the raft is left behind.

 

True...but not in complete submission to the framework (or raft if you may).

Experiential knowledge is most important

[Sunya]

different rafts lead to different experiential realizations, hence the emphasis on raft, or view, in Buddhism.

[dwai]

different rafts lead to different experiential realizations, hence the emphasis on raft, or view, in Buddhism.

 

there is only one destination

you can choose to jump off at the oasis chasing a mirage if you want

[Pero]

Like I said before, DO is not just a concept, not just something you learn, it's also something you have to realize, it's a realization. There is not only one destination, it's silly to think that.